Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles July 15, 2014.

Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles

July 15, 2014

Approach

• Understand the Top level components and clear subcomponents of the Risk Management Process applied to IRMS.

• Clearly bound the Knowledge/Evaluation and Monitoring functions

• Socialize function and scale divisions for groups evaluating existing system roles (including review of previous work)

CSA ISO 31000 Risk Management

Steps/Roles for Risk Management

Establishing the ContextDefinition: Defining the external and internal parameters to be taken into account when managing risk. Setting the scope and risk criteria for the Risk Management Policy.

IRMS Context: Provincial strategies, commitments, policies with desired outcomes.

Accountable/Responsible: Policy Makers

Consulted: • IRMS Partners• Internal and External stakeholders.

Risk IdentificationDefinition: Process of finding, recognizing and describing risks.

Note 1: Involves identification of risk sources, events, their causes and potential consequences;Note 2: Can involve historical data, theoretical data analysis, informed and expert opinions and stakeholder needs

IRMS Context: Gathering the sources of knowledge that will be considered in the Land Use Planning Exercise. Includes Example: Groundwater Quality – Regional picture (spatial) and historical baseline and future trends forecast.

Accountable: Land Use PlannersResponsible: Knowledge Generators

1950 2000 2050

Historical Baseline Future Forecast

TimeG

roun

dwat

er Q

ualit

y In

dica

tors

Regional Knowledge and Context for Groundwater Quality Indicators

Risk Analysis• Definition: Process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk.

– Note 1: Provides basis for Risk Evaluation and decisions about Risk Treatment– Note 2: Includes Risk Estimation

• IRMS Context: Forecast scenarios on the likelihood that hazards may impact on groundwater quality and the potential consequences. Depict visually by populating a risk matrix.

Accountable/Responsible: Land Use Planners

Example: Threats to Groundwater Quality

Low Medium High

Consequence

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Like

lihoo

d of

Occ

urre

nce

Hazards Consequences

Risk Evaluation• Definition: Process of comparing the results of the Risk Analysis with Risk Criteria to

determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable.– Note: Assists in the decision about Risk Treatment

• IRMS Context: Decisions about what activities are acceptable and/or can be tolerated based on a range of controls: policy, management, regulatory tools, monitoring.

Intolerable Risk Level: Inadequate controls in place to reduce risk to

acceptable level

Tolerable Risk Level: Risks can be reduced with either current or

future controls

Acceptable Risk Level: Monitor and further reduce where practicable.

Accountable/Responsible: Policy MakersResponsible: Land Use Planners

Low Medium High

Consequence

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Like

lihoo

d of

Occ

urre

nce

Risk TreatmentDefinition: Process to modify risk.• risk avoidance by deciding not to start or continue with the activity• taking or increasing risk in order to pursue an opportunity• removing the risk source• changing the likelihood; changing the consequences; sharing the risk with another party or parties• retaining risk by informed decision

IRMS Context: *Decisions: Accountable: Policy Makers. Responsible: Land Use PlannersDecisions on controls - strategies in regional plans environmental monitoring frameworks, regulatory, tools, policy.

*Implementation: Accountable/Responsible: System Manager. Responsible: Regulators Implementing controls.

Hazards ConsequencesControls

Preventative Controls Reactive/Response Controls

Monitor and ReviewDefinition: Continual checking, supervising, critically observing or determining the status in order to identify change from the performance level required or expected.

*Ambient: Accountable/Responsible: Knowledge Generators. Informed: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, RespondersOngoing monitoring evidence as to how the natural system is performing.

*Performance: Accountable: System Manager. Responsible: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, Responders. Consulted: Knowledge GeneratorsOngoing review of the performance of the controls based on the ambient monitoring evidence.

Next Steps

• Within KETT/AEMERA• Outside KETT

Within AEMERA

• Build out understanding and vision for what are IRMS needs for Knowledge and Evaluation and Monitoring– Focus on three areas of

Accountability/Responsibility• Risk Identification • Monitoring and Review• Communication and Consultation

Environmental Knowledge Requirements for Risk Identification

Risk Analysis Process

BIODIVERSITY

WATER (surface and groundwater)

LAND

AIR

Aquatic Habitat

QuantityQuality

QualityAcid Deposition

Emissions

LARP Themes

Disturbed LandUndisturbed LandTerrestrial Habitat

Biotic CommunitySpecies at Risk

Wildlife (Terrestrial)Aquatic Life

LARP Sub-Themes

Det

aile

d Li

st o

f ind

icat

ors

requ

iring

kn

owle

dge

and

tailo

red

mon

itorin

g

Environmental Monitoring and Review Requirements

Acid Deposition

LARP ThemesLARP Sub-ThemesM

onito

ring

Plan

s D

evel

oped

to R

epor

t ag

ains

t Reg

iona

l Pla

n In

dica

tors

BIODIVERSITY


LAND

AIR

Aquatic Habitat

QuantityQuality

Quality

Emissions




Risk

Tre

atm

ent

Environmental Communication and Consultation Requirements

LARP ThemesLARP Sub-Themes

Acid Deposition

Mon

itorin

g Pl

ans

Dev

elop

ed to

Rep

ort

agai

nst R

egio

nal P

lan

Indi

cato

rs

BIODIVERSITY


LAND

AIR

Aquatic Habitat

QuantityQuality

Quality

Emissions




Ambi

ent R

epor

ting

(Bot

h da

ta a

nd k

now

ledg

e on

Co

nditi

on o

f Env

ironm

ent)

Outside KETT/AEMERA

• Understanding Existing Capacity – Ask Demarcation group(s) to screen existing work in terms of functions first then scale.– Knowledge Generator vs. Knowledge user– Subject matter expertise vs. Process owner– Knowledge/Context vs. Response/Action

Outside KETT/AEMERA

• Consider further building out RACI to look at functions within:– IRMS Partners– NRE Pod/GOA– Agencies and GOA-funded research and

monitoring groups.

Decisions

• Agree on use of ISO 31000 Risk Management Process and RACI approach and terminology for defining functions at IRMS level

• AEMERA defined as the authoritative source for Environmental Knowledge for the Risk Identification process. – Continued work to build this out.

Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles July 15, 2014.

Documents

Transcript of Risk and RACI: Defining Clear Roles July 15, 2014.